Human Evolution And Natural Selection Made Easy - Dr. Andy Thomson @ W&L Law School

[kpyne52]

The most important part is where he uses his arms to demonstrate the concept of geologic time. Thats the hardest thing for people to wrap their heads around.

[sweetlapaz]

google Doe's Account.

[Kitacub]

So if we all derived from Africa then why aren't we all black then? Or were there black and whtie people in Africa? I'm just curious to know. Alright, but you still didn't answer why we have darker skin people in Africa where it's the HOTTEST and Whiter people like in Russia? Shouldn't it be the opposite then? Darker skin makes natural heat or does it not? So darker people should be in colder climates and lighter people in hotter environments? Naturally, that should have happened.

[bnightm]

Oh my... You really are ignorant aren't you? Well, no shame in that, if you're looking for answers that is.

Darker skin is advantageous in environments closer to the equator, because of the higher levels of ultraviolet radiation. But further from the equator, the levels are lower and then dark skin becomes disadvantageous because we need some UVB if we dont want to suffer from vitamin D deficiency (alternatively we can supplement it through our diet).

[DecemberControversy]

oh wow. the closer the people are to the equator, the darker they will be. This is because the sun is harmful to our storage of Folate. We need Folate to synthesize Vitamin D. People adapted in accordance to how much sun their skin receives.

[4marchbaby12]

i think lighter ppl were in colder environments because they would get sunburn easily in hot environment

darker ppl were in hotter environment because their skin could take the heat

so im guessing skin was more important than warmth :)

[ueks69]

Maybe biology 101 is your friend ;)

[jklarson66]

In lower latitudes with more direct sunlight darker pigments evolved to in order to protect skin from UV raise which cause sunburns and skin cancer. It may feel a bit warmer as infrared is more readily absorbed, but the advantage of fewer sunburns and less melanoma makes it worth while. In higher latitudes lighter skin evolved in order to maximize the absorption of vitamin D where sunburn and melanoma was less of a problem. Hope this helps.

[Acrimonator]

And more unexplanable is how 8 peoples (Noah's family) has given birth to such a variety of human, beside the fact that consanguinity would have reduced humanity to babbling ass scratching retards...

[Kitacub]

So if we all derived from Africans then what's the point of some humans having different colored skin? If natural selection selects best for the environment then why haven't we developed skin that won't get burned? And don't African-Americans get sunburned too isn't it harder too? If so, why don't we all have dark skin color especially in colder enviromnments where we can naturally warm ourselves?

[deckard9757]

Kitacub, there's no "if" about it. Maternal Mitochondrial DNA confirms that we all derived from Africa. I don't think I've seen African tribesmen slap on Piz Buin or indeed get sunburn! Burn-resistant skin plays no significant part in Natural Selection. Only a relatively small percentage of humans get burnt. This, coupled with early man's low life expectancy means that a UV resistant mutation didn't affect the survival of early man and hence no natural selection.

It's simple really, isn't it?

[parkplace5577]

teatree oil must've been in the homeopathy treatment, it kills viruses and germs

just like your disgusting pile of shit whore thing you had the nerve to

call a "mother"..hell's far too good for that pile of dogshit, and may you die like that

useless bitch..btw..why all the stalking and fake accounts? FAGGOT!!

[bnightm]

Evolution doesn't result in perfect organisms, just better adapted ones. Pale skin is an adaptation to the lower levels of UVB radiation present further from the equator, which is needed to produce vitamin D.

Evolution has no foresight and no "idea" how to create skin that can't be burned by the sun. It can only select the slight improvements that come about by random chance and through many generations, the results are amazing.

[Bockatadi]

i love the statement debunking ALL racism starting at about 7:00

[actionreplayman07]

@Bockatadi I TRY to tell the guys at school this!!! But they don't believe me! D:

[bigjesse1985]

humans aren't evolving, it is our technology that evolves. but our advances in technology are reducing, or even halting our natural evolution process. evolution requires for non-beneficial genes to be removed from the gene pool, but "humanity" demands that everybody must be kept alive. death is not a bad thing; it is essential for the forwarding of the species. medicine - though it's intentions are good in the short-term - is detrimental to evolutionary processes

[blaziermissy]

Apparently eugenics advocates have warped your thinking. The genes that are here today is due to natural selection. Yes we affect evolution artificially with our interceptions of technology, but we also affect it negatively by having an environment conducive to religion. Think about that.

We don't need to worry about what constitutes the best genes, Hitler, we need to focus on the fact that the earth has the carrying capacity, we just have a few elite who horde the resources.

[Snowmon89]

Not according to evolutionist. From what I understand It doesn't matter what environment the creature exists in. Unless it lives near a radioactive power source it's DNA wont be effected. (if you dare say the sun...) Plus our DNA is trying NOT to evolve/mutate. (Genetics 101 see: enzymes w/ DNA) The creatures mutate but they do it at random. NSelection only says that those ones that survive long enough to reproduce shall further evolution by passing on the mutated gene. (usually 50/50)

[bigjesse1985]

wait, so you're saying that unless we live near a radioactive power source DNA doesn't mutate? mutations occur in DNA (note: ALL DNA) all the time, and yes that is at random. even human DNA mutates, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. but the healthcare systems that humans have developed ensure that genes remain in the gene pool whether they are beneficial or not. though medicine has the best intentions, it reduces our ability to evolve.

[Snowmon89]

That's not what I'm saying. In truth I don't believe in evolution, but from my understanding 1st Mutations happens at random regardless of the environment (this includes medicine, atmosphere, and food sources). 2nd Our DNA also has a self check system that tries to make sure that we don't mutate.

[bigjesse1985]

what "self check system" is this? our DNA, like all other DNA mutates naturally during meiosis when the stable double-helix structure become an instable single strand. if these mutations are beneficial to the offspring, the offspring survives. successful reproduction in this generation allows for integration of the mutation into the gene pool. the environment provides niches that the new mutations may allow for the organism to fill. this is speciation: another aspect of evolution.

[Snowmon89]

Enzymes are the self check system. Didn't you study reproduction? Your DNA automatically is looked over frontwards and backwards along with your RNA. If there is an error caught the Cell is destroyed or corrected quickly. (can't remember which.) This happens when producing sperm and with the development of eggs as well.

The creature doesn't adapt to its environment through evolution, out of anything the creature changes and has to find where it can survive best before it's killed.

[EllisRonn]

Natural selection is an important part of evolution, but this lecturer leaves out the other important part: Genetic mutation. He touches on it with terms like "variety" and "complexity," but he doesn't actually talk about it.

[Snowmon89]

I didn't even bother finishing it. He went on and on about practically nothing.

[blaziermissy]

The bottom line is that we all are here due to natural selection. OUR advantage is, that we have big, complex brains to recognize that, and that we MUST not keep promoting a primitive trait ARTIFICIALLY and at the advantage of a greedy few who horde the resources. It's crucial that we act moral in conjunction with knowledge; the hording of the resources is unatural, nor conducive to the planet. We must act with integrity, not special interest, as primitive traits are harmful.

[Snowmon89]

What primitive traits? He goes on and on, even though its supposedly a simple subject. I'm barely in college and I said what it was right off the bat. As human beings we do have intelligent brains, but... I rather not finish that sentence.

[blaziermissy]

Instead of falling into a thinking error (insulting others and ethnocentrism) we must look at evolution as it is. OUR environment is what we (n.s.) adapts to and our environment props up religion, a primitive survival trait. It's not insulting, it's science, that's why religion is prevalent...we promote it in the environment.

We must change our environment if we want to steer natural selection towards humanity's best interest. We yeild the paintbrush, so to speak.

[Snowmon89]

Religion is not a survival trait. Ever since man was on earth (regardless of how we say it happened) he has observed his environment. He knows that something has to make something, because that is how everything around him looks. It is only natural to reason that there was something that made it all. But when one keeps asking what made that? Irritably you have to say "I don't know"

Also no offense, but "steering natural selection" is making you sound like Hitler. And we all know how that ended.

[Snowmon89]

Also our environment doesn't determine how one evolves/mutates. Only what traits will survive in a certain environment. Such as rabbits in the dessert.(sp), fish in the ocean or penguins in the Arctic areas.

[blaziermissy]

I disagree. Religion is a survival trait; a by product for survival. Also, looking to the environment in wondering why, where, and how is normal, but it is our human disposition to apply human attributes to our explanation, thus, we believe someone with our traits(in our image) made us and the world(b/c we create things) that we relieve our curosity and stress. Therefore, religion is a survival mechanism.

It's obvious that what we do to the earth artificially effects natural selection. cont-

[Snowmon89]

Religion is not a survival trait. The ten commandments are something that we all agree on. If not at least 9/10. You can't survive without it and no one is able to get rid of it. Even Atheist believe in something.

Next off, God made us in his image not the other way around.

[bigjesse1985]

the ten commandments are not something that everybody agrees on. it is logical to not kill or not steal. as for not working on the sabbath, i know a lot of people who don't agree with that. everybody has morals, whether they are religious or not. people of abrahamic faiths believe that god made us in his image. some people believe that humans created the concept of god(s) in an attempt to answer the question of existance. everybody believes something, we are free to do so.

[Snowmon89]

Do you even know what the 10 commandments are?

It doesn't say anything about the sabbath. Recognizing the Sabbath is just a way that we "Abrahamic faiths" to show our respects. Plus man can't work 24/7. We need a break too every now and then.

[bigjesse1985]

"But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns." exodus 20:10. still think it doesn't say anything about the sabbath? yes we need a break, but if you don't have one, it doesn't make you a bad person does it?

[blaziermissy]

continued- thus, it is important that we steward the earth with intelligence. What Hitler did was sickening, just as what we did with Einsteins nuclear bomb was deplorable. We must rise above our primative instincts to destroy each other and promote the total of humanity. Don't compare me to Hitler, as he was the product of the ignorance of religion. It divides us now, because it's used to exploit, counterproductive for the good of humankind.

[Snowmon89]

It doesn't divide us. It is in fact the one thing that we all agree on. It is not a trait, What Hitler did was wrong and he knew it. Do you really think that he was ignorant?

The first thing he did was get rid of religions and artists (people who were able to think on their own or knew what Hitler was saying was lies.) Then he tried to make sure that none of the scientist would escape. (We are lucky he missed at least one.) He went after the Jews specifically. Why, they had money. God or not.

[bigjesse1985]

hitler believed that some humans had characteristics that were non-beneficial and tried to remove them by force. he believed that what he was doing was right, but he knew that how he was doing it was immoral. it wasn't the removal of free-thinkers that hitler did, it was removal of competition. hitler's church remained open throughout the time that he was chancellor. religion divides us. money divides us. politics divides us. identity divides us.

[Snowmon89]

Please forgive me for saying it like this but by saying that Religion, money, politics, and (worse of all) Identity divides us you are worse than Hitler. Our identities are more important than life.

[bigjesse1985]

it is the truth though, if we had no identity (that is the broad concept of identity, not your name!), how could we be divided? while one person believes that they are something and another believes that they are something else, they are divided! plain and simple! there's something wrong with you if you think that merely stating the obvious makes me worse that hitler! you're being ridiculous!

[Snowmon89]

Not really, If we have no Identities then we have no individuality, No individuality, then no new ideas. No new Ideas then no Progress. We are much higher than machines.

Your statement is worse than saying "If we don't exist then there will be nothing but beauty because there can be no mess."

Well, guess what i am proud to be me (a chimera) and not you.

[bigjesse1985]

at no point have i said that we should remove identities. i merely said that it divides us. i believe that being divided is not necessarily a bad thing. everybody is different, but if everybody is treated with the same respect (including ourselves), where is the problem? i am not saying that division makes somebody better than somebody else, just that being different is not a bad thing.

[Snowmon89]

Sorry that is not what you were making it look like.

Besides, there are certain facts that you are forgetting. Yes, we should respect everyone the same. But I am in the understanding that depends on what you believe. I believe that you have to earn someone's respect, not expect or demand it.

[bigjesse1985]

what am i making it look like? i believe that respect should be expected until you have done something to lose that respect. i am respecting you and your beliefs, except when you said that i am worse that hitler. however i am taking that with a pinch of salt because it is totally ridiculous and you still haven't explained why you feel that way.

[bigjesse1985]

many things are counterproductive to the good of mankind, but it is not their concepts that are counterproductive, it is the lack of trust that we have in the people applying these ideas. it was not "einstein's nuclear bomb", he had the idea that a large amount of energy could be released from a small amount of matter. it was the people who used this idea to create the atom bomb that made the concept counterproductive.

[Snowmon89]

I never said that it was made by Einstein. The real person that came up with the Nuke came from germany (the last train too.)

Anything can become wrong if you miss use, corrupt, or abuse it.

[blaziermissy]

The people used this idea? Bs. The elite war mongers used this idea and rallied the people through conditioning via the media....propoganda.

If I misunderstood what you meant, please clarify.

[bigjesse1985]

religion is not a survival trait, primitive or not. it is a method of explaining how things are. it is an attempt to answer questions such as "how are we here?" and "now that we are here, able to communicate our thoughts and band together, how should we behave?". it is not necessary, it is a by-product of our ability to communicate our thoughts. the concepts of "sentimentality" and "humanity" - though created with the best intentions - are restrictions on our ability to evolve.

[Snowmon89]

They are not restrictions on how we evolve either. Our mind sets have nothing to do with our DNA. Anybody (evolutionist or creationist) will tell you that.

[bigjesse1985]

correct, our mind-sets have no direct link to our DNA, but the onset effects of these mind-sets do affect our evolution. medicine and healthcare is the essence of humanity. caring for others indiscriminantly is something that we would consider "moral". however, while non-beneficial genes are not being removed from our gene pool, we can't evolve. even those things done with the best intentions can be restrictive.

[Snowmon89]

So you are worse than hitler. Believe it or not, Birth defects are not because of evolution and they are not able to be passed on. Some genetics like midgets sure, but not the way you are presenting it.

[bigjesse1985]

are you actually listening to yourself? how am i worse than hitler? non-beneficial genes remain in the gene pool because medicine keeps people with these genes alive so that the genes can be passed on. i'm not saying that this is a bad thing, just stating fact. if people with hereditary diabetes, for example, were to die rather than inject themselves with insulin, the gene would not be passed on. note: I'M NOT SAYING KILL EVERYBODY WHO HAS DIABETES!!!

[Snowmon89]

My family has that problem. I may also have heart problems, and skin cancer in my future. So, it was kind of personal. Sorry for calling you worse than Hitler. I must have misunderstood what you wrote.

[bigjesse1985]

i apologise if i offended you in some way, i did not mean it like that. i used the diabetes example because it has also affected my family too. don't get me wrong, i am thankful for medicine, however i have accepted that it has it's drawbacks when considering human evolution.

[Snowmon89]

But that's just it, I don't believe that humans have evolved, or at least not how people are trying to teach it.

I have also not used any type of medicine (given some vitamins or cough drops every now and then as a child) for years. In fact, i haven't even gotten sick enough to stay at home for at least 9 years. That's not to say that I haven't been around sick people or anything. In fact, I'm usually the nurse, because everyone else gets sick. lol.

[bigjesse1985]

i'm exactly the same. i tend to be looking after sick people a lot more than i get sick myself. i had septicaemia not long ago, but even then hardly touched the prescribed medicine and let my body overcome the infection itself! i respect that you don't believe the same as me. i will never say that you are wrong about your beliefs, besides, there is an equal chance of my beliefs being wrong too! i have accepted evolution for now. what are your beliefs?

[Snowmon89]

Truthfully, I'm what most people here on youtube would call a F****T***. I don't believe in evolution, but I do believe in the original Christian Bible. (non-mormanism.) Including the flood.

I'm sorry again if I offended you. I usually don't tell people their wrong, unless I am able to use the word "because". I'm just so used to people flat out arguing with me. I hate it when people didn't even stop to think about what I tried to say.

[bigjesse1985]

i firmly feel that people should be able to believe whatever they want. if you choose not to believe in evolution then that's your decision. i've chosen to believe in it, but that shouldn't affect anybody else's choice on the matter. i wasn't offended, as i said, i took it with a pinch of salt. i would much rather have an intelligent discussion than an argument. arguments usually start because one person is stubborn and refuses to listen to the other. i like listening to other people's thoughts!

[blaziermissy]

Well, what would you call a way of explaining things? It relieved stress, formed cohesive social groups etc, thus a survival trait.

The lecturerer agrees with this too, and it is a perfectly rational and obvious conclusion.

[bigjesse1985]

politics created the stress that religion 'relieves' anyway. i'm not sure if it was religion that created these cohesive social groups. if anything, religion has always segregated societies into class systems. even in babylon and sumeria (the earliest known religions) society was split in two: commoners and priests. those who were associated with religion were seen as higher than everybody else. doesn't sound so cohesive to me.

[blaziermissy]

Politics CREATED religion, is what you meant to say, right? Religion created cohesion in the sense that it made the people FEAR a god, thus cohesive in that it kept them in line and obeying laws, and more prone to work, and for less. An afterlife was justice for living such a shitty existence on earth, and much desired. As did the early greeks use it for peasant slave labor, this was as the priest wanted... easier to squeeze money from them.

Fear is the mother of all religions. Demcritus-

[blaziermissy]

Correction:

Fear is the mother of all religions. Democritus-

Oh, the hypocrital irony...Democritus.....Democra­cy. What a joke.

[bigjesse1985]

politics created the need for a religion. not all religion is based on fear. paganism (arguably the oldest still-existing religion) is based on respecting nature. there is no fear or consistent practices involved, but instead a stewardship, sentimentality and co-operation with the environment. the majority of religions that we know today (particularly the abrahamics) have very close connections with politics. connections that are completely unnecessary.

[blaziermissy]

Bottom line: Fear is the mother of religion. Pagan belief was still built from the people's need for answers; a need for understanding and explaining the world....A need to know...a FEAR. A need to know to relieve stress; a survival attribute. Leaders exploit it.

Why must you argue?

[bigjesse1985]

i'm not arguing, i agree that most modern religions are based on fear, and whether governments created this or utilised it for their own means, they have become affiliated. however, i disagree that religion was founded out of fear, and i don't believe that a need for knowledge is bred from said fear. emotional stress is a totally human construct; in fact emotion is a totally human construct. "where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise" - thomas gray

[Snowmon89]

Why is this guy having such a hard time explaining Natural Selection if it's easy to understand? Natural Selection is when one sector of a species survives longer than the rest of the species, because of the traits that they possess. How hard is it to say that?

[blaziermissy]

I think he's trying to say that we've evolved beyond other animals to recognize that we must not wipe each other out like primitive animals, but use our big brains to utilize the earth resources intelligently and promote ALL humanity.

[Disthron]

Nice talk, very interesting.

[mikejohncooper]

Yes they can look back at many of the selective forces that drove our evolution, however not all of them. Evolution is always occurring, speciation is when a new species develops or evolves separate from the parent species (not individual parent, but parent population to the new species). It's not that speciation is only occurring so often, rather that most intermediate species go extinct leaving very little, if any, fossil evidence of their existence.

[julzabro]

I have a question. Are the chimps that we evolved from still here and if so are they still evolving? Shouldn't there be some monkies still in between monkey and man? Are we still evolving and, if so, into what?

[Kasapamese]

that's a great question.

I think we are still evolving. Why do I think that? Because when I look around whay humankind does, that cannot be the best what's possible. that would be far too sad. into what? I have no clue ;)

[julzabro]

It seems like if we can study a big enough chunk of human existence that we should be able to see changes from the oldest human to now...if we were still evolving.

[mikejohncooper]

no the apes we evolved from are not still around, they are extinct, we are evolving, but no one can tell you into what because that is determined by external selective forces that are not predetermined. There are no monkeys left between monkeys and man, the split with monkeys came nearly 5 million years before the split with chimpanzees

[julzabro]

If we did evolve from monkies, shouldn't scientists be able to determine what external selective forces caused our evolution? Shouldn't some of those monkies still exist and shouldn't there be other species showing evolution?

[mikejohncooper]

I didn't say scientists couldn't determine the selective forces involved in our evolution to this point, what they cannot do is look into the future to tell you the selective forces or the direction of our evolution. Also, no the intermediate species should not still exist, it is very rare that speciation would occur multiple times with surviving intermediate species, let a lone the thousands of times between humans and apes.

[julzabro]

I didn't say that u said scientists couldn't determine the selective forces involved in our evolution to this point...I asked the question if they are able to see the forces that cause our evolution up till now. So "speciation" only occurs so often?

[adolthitler]

Well they know some of them.

Disease.

Predation.

Population pressure.

Mike is slightly wrong we are still apes. You should change form calling us monkies, and call us apes.

[julzabro]

Ok so we changed into humans from apes. Are there or shouldn't their be other species evolving?

[adolthitler]

Yes its going on now.

All life is evolving, you are part of it.

Seeing it is hard as it takes place over time, to be noticable, say 1000 generations. At 25 years per generation thats 25,000 years for humans. You are not going to notice much of that in your lifetime.

Although it is belived that some women are able to see slightly into the ultraviolet at this time. Which may indicate an evolutionary pathway we may be heading down.

[bigjesse1985]

we can only change based on climate. all other environmental factors have become invalid due to urbanisation, agriculture, our grasp and effect on nature (e.g. deforestation, hunting, etc) and various 'human' factors such as politics, money, religion and medicine. our species has existed for almost 100,000 years. at one time there were 11 species (that we know of) within the genus homo. we survived because of our ability to reproduce early in life an more frequently that other species during ...

[bigjesse1985]

...climatic hardship (most likely a volcanic winter roughly 75,000 years ago) when other hominid species couldn't cope. since then, our species has seen very little change, notably reductions in body hair and the size of our brain case/cerebrum. what has changed, however, is our technology. if anything is to shape our species' future in terms of evolution (other than aforementioned climatic variation), it is our creations and how we utilise them.

[adolthitler]

I think seeing in ultraviolet will help. Only slightly so its adoption across the human race will be slow.

Evolution has not been stopped, we still have disease, and depression. We will evolve happier and more disease resistant people in the future. Also don't forget we will be able to engineer our changes too. So we might turn our vitamin C gene back on.

[bigjesse1985]

the fact that we still catch diseases is more proof that evolution is slowing than than that it is continuing. most species of shark are immune to all forms of infection due to evolutionary advances. we won't evolve "happier" people as emotion is a human invention. people won't magically evolve to become resistant to disease if we use manufactured antibiotics to counter infection. evolution requires death on a relatively large scale in order to be successful. humans are preventing that.

[adolthitler]

You are so wrong.

We catch diseases, because they evolve faster than we do.

We will evolve happier people because suicides, are taking the depressed out of the population.

We will evolve against disease because they are becoming resistant to anti biotics, we will be naked to disease.

[bigjesse1985]

we can't evolve against disease if we aren't naturally fighting it ourselves. we engineer antibiotics to cope with mutating viruses and bacteria. if we were to fight disease with our own immune systems rather than engineered medicines, THEN it would be possible to evolve. our genetic blueprint will not mutate to allow for our immune systems to fight diseases if we create medicines to fight disease for us. and everybody has the potential to become depressed. emotion is totally human, not natural.

[Snowmon89]

Who said that it was ever turned off? On the other hand is losing Genetic information really evolution?

[bigjesse1985]

well it is one of the main aspects of natural selection, and natural selection is one of the main aspects of evolution. the human gene pool can gain as many new traits as it wants, but if the non-beneficial characteristics are still being retained, how is the homo sapiens species supposed to advance? there is no development without loss. if loss is being reduced, so must development.

[julzabro]

If scientists can see and prove that humans have evolved....over last 1000 generations....where is the evidence of other species evolving?

[bigjesse1985]

charles darwin showed that animals evolved with his discovery of various species of finch in the galapagos islands. he just didn't realise until he tied his observations and ideas of 'survival of the fittest' in with alfred russel wallace's theory of evolution. there is plenty of evidence for the evolution of species other than humans. in fact, over the last 1000 generations, humans haven't evolved much at all.

[julzabro]

So, of this "plenty evidence" can u tell me what other species are evolving and why aren't humans evolving still?

[EricZombie]

humans still are evolving. all life is evolving. but for animals that only breed once every 35 years or so will accumulate mutations much slower than animals that breed much quicker, like mice or bacteria.

[julzabro]

Now THAT answer makes a lot of sense to me. I hadn't considered the fact that we breed far less frequently than most other creatures here. Do you think we're evolving mentally moreso than physically and can intellectual change be considered evolution?

[EricZombie]

all systems evolve, from businesses, language, living things, even religion itself evolves. when you talk of intellectual change, i think you are speaking about the evolution of culture. culture is mainly passed by word of mouth, so it's not really built into our genes. the ability to cooperate is somewhat genetic.

if intelligence gives us a reproductive advantage, then we should evolve to be a more intelligent species over time. unfortunately, stupid people breed more quickly.

[pablovirus]

LOL @ the last bit of that comment

That's true, especially when stupid people are against anti conceptive methods.

[EricZombie]

certain people feel it's their RIGHT to create as many offspring as possible. because... you know... 7 billion people isn't enough.

[Snowmon89]

Darwin only showed how the species of birds evolved into a variety. He couldn't even comprehend the complexity of single celled organisms. If he did he would have never published his discoveries. (funny, how some things have to go in order.)

[bigjesse1985]

darwin's finches were his most famous example of natural selection. he also suggested how galapagos tortoise shells differed between islands depending on where their food is found and also differences between many species of insect. darwin didn't theorise evolution; alfred russel wallace created the concept and amalgamated darwin's natural selection idea. but it is true that neither darwin or wallace could demonstrate their ideas using single-celled organisms.

[w0bbl3r]

i say intelligent OR physical because in general people arent both

there are still small changes going on, i think, and nature cant be ignored by us, no matter how far we advance. it does its job, without asking for permission. the easiest way to show this is a quote from the (yes, stupid) movie jurrasic park, "life finds a way". it always does, and always will. we will never conquer death, ageing, or disease. we cant stop evolution. im not educated on evolution. these are just my observations

[bigjesse1985]

we also have lost most of our body hair since the species first originated. this could be for a number of reasons, such as our discovery of fire or using clothes to keep ourselves warm rather than relying on our hair. you have used a lot of stereotypes there! even if all people who are intelligent aren't "physical", they would still be able to provide food for themselves. very few people realise exactly what the human body is capable of because, as you say, we don't need to

[bigjesse1985]

it is not true to say that more intelligent people wear glasses. this is a generalisation, and probably completely wrong. there is a slight correlation between intelligence and short-sightedness, but very slight! and statistical correlations always have a possibility of coincidence. even so, short-sightedness is not a disability. people would still be able to provide for themselves if they were long- or short-sighted.

[w0bbl3r]

ok, maybe not most intelligent people wear glasses, but there arent many athletes who wear them, right?.

thats an excellent point about how we dont grow immunity to disease. this also is a reason we are overpopulated, as disiease is one of natures ways of dealing with this. i never thought of that before.

and i agree, we have massively slowed evolution, but i dont think we can stop it.

[bigjesse1985]

it is not stupid to quote jurassic park. "life finds a way" is one of the fundamentals of chaos theory. no matter what happens, life is always unpredictable. also, michael crichton, the author of jurassic park, was an md and 6ft9 - intelligent AND physical! i have two degrees and i'm 6ft6 (not as impressive as dr crichton in either respect!). we have at least slowed evolution greatly (perhaps the current climate change will have an effect on our species) as natural selection can't affect us

[bigjesse1985]

if we become diseased, we cure it rather than allow a natural resistance to build. hereditary diseases are treated and allowed to be passed on to the next generation. i am not suggesting any solutions to these ideas (firstly because i feel that we have gone too far down this path to turn back, and secondly because it would be impossible for the world's entire population to agree anyway), i would just hate to see our species go to waste! :P

[GowanBray]

I am getting irritated by this guy's oratory style. Spoilt by Dawkins and Hitchens I guess. He says "OK" and "um" too much and is really not fluid enough. Just a bit of feedback which I hope will identify areas for improvement.

[w0bbl3r]

as we are evolving to be more intelligent, rather than fitter and stronger, females should find intellect more attractive than a neanderthal type moron, but they dont. yet. hopefully this will change, and we can weed out the moronic, violent, beer-swilling, cavemen types we still see so often. thats my hope for the future, anyway

[bigjesse1985]

as a species, we aren't evolving to be more intelligent. the spectrum is broadening, but in both directions. humans aren't evolving. our technology is; and most of the time, the technology exists for our convenience, making our evolution even less possible. we're drilling ourselves into an evolutionary standstill. recessive genes and non-beneficial mutations flourish in the human gene pool as the process of natural selection is not removing them for reasons that we ourselves are responsible for.

[w0bbl3r]

but surely the thing we should be looking for in a partner now is intelligence, rather than hunting skills, and strength?

as it stands, females look for strong physical traits in a partner. males look for similar. but we dont NEED that anymore, so to evolve further and stay ahead, we should be breeding intelligence, rather than physical cavemen with an I.Q. barely in double figures, right?

this is how new breeds stay on, isnt it? that the partner will see this new trait, and want to breed it on

[bigjesse1985]

why should it be intelligence "rather than" physical traits and not intelligence "as well as" physical traits? it also depends what you mean by need. we don't NEED politics or economies, but they still remain large parts of the lives of the vast majority of people on this planet. selection in nature is determined by competition or displays (of health or fertility), normally by the male. these methods indicate how well adapted the individual is to it's native environment and/or how healthy it is.

[bigjesse1985]

speciation occurs following a change of surrounding - either by dispersal, separation by an obstacle of some kind, or climate change - and how well certain genetic mutations cope with these changes. non-beneficial mutations lead to the individual becoming unhealthy and therefore undesirable. breeding then occurs to the point where the individuals with beneficial mutations are more successful and other individuals fail to reproduce, so the non-beneficial mutations are lost from the gene pool

[w0bbl3r]

well, for instance; people are growing old now to find they dont need to shave very often. 1,000 years ago every man needed to shave daily, pretty much. now, more and more have less facial hair.

this is because of a change in suroundings, as you say; we dont need it anymore. we dont need to be so physical anymore, and more physical people dont normally tend to be overly intelligent.

[bigjesse1985]

speciation occurs when the individuals with the new beneficial mutations interbreed amongst themselves and eventually can't produce fertile offspring with the original species. in the case of homo sapiens, we have separated ourselves from nature with unnecessary concepts such as medicine, morality, equality and identity, so non-beneficial traits remain and there is no longer a natural selection process.

[w0bbl3r]

is it stereotyping people to say that more intelligent people tend to wear glasses? maybe, but its also true. this is an obvious physical disability. people with bad eyesight wouldnt last hunting in the wild, would they? no, because they wouldnt have glasses, and so wouldnt be able to see. this isnt a factor now.

[blaziermissy]

No disrespect, but you advocate the genetic predisposition we have to stay in line with other animals. Our bigger brains must promote morality; its our one quality that keeps us from destroying the ENTIRE earth. We yield the paintbrush for evolution, and it must not be to promote primacy and competition now that we understand it, but logic combined with innate morality to promote intelligent gene survival, not savagery.

[pianobass]

And from that perspective, I can understand why women always want you to "figure them out", to test your intelligence. Even if thats not the reason they do it, they instinctivly still do this, at least the intelligent women themselves.

[RockAndRollMassacre]

survival of the fittest does not mean survival of the best, unfortunately

[w0bbl3r]

example?

[GegoXaren]

I am no expert but:

It is not strictly a "survival of the fittest" it is a "survival of the best adept" or "survival of the ones how just survives", just look at us humans, we are not the fittest animal out there, but we adapt, and he have relatively big brains... but we are not, yet, fully adapted to life on 2 legs.

my 2cents

[marsCubed]

I am no biologist either, but here is my 2 pence woth.

Another way to think of survival is that a trait or traits may be being carried by many individuals within a population. So things like gene pool, diversity and population size are also key to understanding what happens from generation to generation. Indeed survival of the fittest can mean survival of many very different traits as divergence into different species occurs, so survival is also ability to adapt to niches by having variety.

[w0bbl3r]

yes, but if you look at the type of man a woman will find attractive (im talking mostly, not all the time), they will still go for the fittest, strongest. men who will be aggresive in their jealousy and (as they see it) protection of that woman will be attractive. this is nature

[blaziermissy]

True, but the more knowledge and insight you have concerning evolution, the more you steer your thinking to a mate more conducive to our modern environment; not so much as physical traits, but intelligent traits.

[w0bbl3r]

but you said "the more knowledge and insight you have concerning evolution", right?

most people are very ignorant about evolution. i dont know a great deal, but most people only have a general idea we descended from apes, and thats it. this must be over 80% of the population, and of them, most are completely primitive and stupid concerning even basic things in life, except who is on the cover of the latest celebrity magazine, which alos promotes physical, rather than mental traits, as better

[Ing213]

For a second I thought this was Human Evolution made easy with Michael J Anderson. This was sadly too awesome a concept to exist in this universe.

[medykum]

"Arguing that because the brain can create weapons and therefore be a bad thing is like saying having a heart is bad because you have have heart disease. Although it's true that we can create weapons, that is only one possibility. we can also create medicine."

Creating weapons and mass destruction bombms can be an advantage to - it may solve the problem of demografic boom ;-)

[w0bbl3r]

and can keep the overpopulation problem in check, right?

yeah, baby... and they look AWESOME!!!

[mandalastar]

But, I agree with the idea in general, and found this video very facinating and informative.

[mandalastar]

I disagree. Natural selection is not a problem solver, but survival of the fittest. There isn't an intelligence to the process, just the luck of surviving, and passing down prosperous DNA.

[Nashy119]

It's the same thing, it solves the survival problem.

We don't always inherit advantages that's not a requirement, but logically disadvantages do die out.

[mandalastar]

Of corse. But, we must admit, there are tremendous disadvantages to the evolutionof our brain. Like the ability to make nuclear bombs and use them, which is a direct result of our evolution of the brain. That sorta makes natural selection a problem maker.

[fatmanprime]

There is no way for evolution to know that the brain brings problems. Evolution doesn't plan ahead.

[CadicusTheDamned]

"We don't always inherit advantages that's not a requirement, but logically disadvantages do die out."

However, inherited advantages will naturally make you better adapted in your environment and therefore more likely to reproduce and pass on those genetic advantages. AaronRa has an excellent video regarding environmentally advantageous mutations. People that have mutated stronger bones or more muscle and less fat currently walk the Earth.

[jonstewartfanboy]

It is one key part of a process, not the whole thing. Natural Selection can be thought of as a (typically slow changing relative to 1 generational lifetime) dynamic filter, deleting (through attrition) those organisms whose traits reduce relative reproductive fitness. Those organisms that pass the filter (i.e. successfully reproduce) pass their heritable traits along for further replication and variation (mutation and other sources) once more.

[nowayout001]

Luck of surviving? Luck is only a small fraction. There is more to luck. I am not talking about intelligence behind the process. But I think natural selection and evolution are not all about luck...

[DefaultPosition]

mandalastar

I agree with you.

I also think it is not helpful to use language that implied an end goal or any type of intentionality.

It is only once you grasp the fact that evolution is blind that you get it.

[mandalastar]

Exactly.

[tommyk77]

There is an intelligence; the animal itself. 'Fittest' does not necessarily mean the one in best shape. For us it was survival of the smartest.

Natural selection works exactly as Darwin's model suggested

[crimsonfist3]

But the intelligence of the animal is part of its 'fitness' Keep in mind that literally ANYTHING that augments survival and/or reproductive success contributes to the concept of the organism's fitness. Arguing that because the brain can create weapons and therefore be a bad thing is like saying having a heart is bad because you have have heart disease. Although it's true that we can create weapons, that is only one possibility. we can also create medicine.

[tommyk77]

I think you missed my point. The animal finds a niche. Ours was thinking, for birds it's flying, cheetahs it is running. The survival of the creature is guided by which one is best at what is necessary to survive.

I wasn't talking about hindrances to the creature; I was merely pointing out that you don't need to invoke the supernatural to explain something that works fine as it is.

[blaziermissy]

See what I posted regarding this issue. Tell me what you think...lol.

[pianobass]

Yes, because if you think about it, humans could not rely on brute strength alone to defend and hunt due to the fact that there were many animals that easily out performed us physically, we wouldnt stand a chance relying on primitive fighting skills. Those who were very intelligent were the ones to survive, by outsmarting the more physically more powerful animals. Our intelligence allowed to survive thru the ice age, because we learned how to adapt. Therefore, the most intelligent were the -

[pianobass]

- fittest. Intelligence remains to be the key trait to our survival, and always will be.

[blaziermissy]

I agree. YOU have hit the nail on the head!!! "FITTEST" does not necessarily mean the one in best shape. Natural selection is indifferent, and selects best for OUR environment. Look at our environment......what type of human would best fit in the world we have now?

Hint: "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society" J.K.



Natural Selection is indifferent, no doubt about it. If it were an intelligent entity, it would clean house.....

[bigjesse1985]

natural selection does not apply to humans. whether we live or die is no longer determined by our environment, it is determined by a monetary system, a political system, a religious system, a legal system and how long available medicine can keep us alive. natural selection would be indifferent if it had the opportunity to be, however homo sapiens has turned it's back on nature.

[Bockatadi]

i agree sort of. having been saved by medicine. if nature had its way id be dead at 9months old. our (homo sapiens)) selection mechanism seems to be a combination of intelligence, technology, and communication.

[bigjesse1985]

our species has existed for around 100 millenia. its only the past 10,000years in which technology has taken hold and diverted us away from nature and its selection processes. unfortunately, technology has its drawbacks. for instance, survival and reproduction of individuals with hereditary diabetes allows for the passing on of those genes rather than being removed from the gene pool. the same goes for all hereditary conditions. i am not saying that medicine is bad, just highlighting pitfalls!

[luker4459]

Yeah and what i dont understand is how we are going to deal with over-population.

It's a problem already.

[Evilenlil]

The most important thing is the accumulation of knoledge. Whithout that we are still living in the bush.

[bnightm]

Medicine is part of nature too.

[bnightm]

Sure it does. As long as we have variable reproductive success, we evolve by natural selection. It's not just about how good you are at chasing down game. If playing the guitar or buying a good health insurance gets you more children, then that's life.

[Morgoth295]

fitness is defined as "the quality at which an organism can reproduce".

[blues260]

thank you for uploading this video :)

If someone here likes to see more about this topic.. Potholer54 made great videos about evolution and several other things.